The Islamic Dilemma is a recently popularised argument used by Christian apologists such as David Wood, Sam Shamoun and GodLogic. The argument claims that the Quran affirms the authenticity of the Torah and Bible. If the Torah and Bible are authentic, then the Quran is wrong for contradicting them. If they are corrupted, then the Quran is still wrong because it affirms them. Either way, Islam is supposedly disproven, hence the name “Islamic Dilemma.” This article focuses on debunking this argument, showing it relies on misinterpretations of Quranic verses

Reassessing the “Islamic Dilemma” Verses

Did Allah Tell Muhammad (SAW) to Consult the Bible? (10:94)

It is claimed that this verse instructs Prophet Muhammad (SAW), when in doubt about his revelations, to consult Jews and Christians to whom the prior scriptures were revealed, implying those scriptures are trustworthy.

فَإِن كُنتَ فِي شَكّٖ مِّمَّآ أَنزَلۡنَآ إِلَيۡكَ فَسۡـَٔلِ ٱلَّذِينَ يَقۡرَءُونَ ٱلۡكِتَٰبَ مِن قَبۡلِكَ ۚ لَقَدۡ جَآءَكَ ٱلۡحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّكَ فَلَا تَكُونَنَّ مِنَ ٱلۡمُمۡتَرِينَ ٩٥

Translation: And if thou art in doubt concerning that which We have sent down to thee, ask those who have been reading the Book before thee. Indeed the truth has come to thee from thy Lord; be not, therefore, of those who doubt.

[Quran 10:94]

However, this verse does not mention Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and does not suggest that he was the one in doubt, because one who receives revelation cannot experience doubt. The Quran itself cannot be described as something that produces doubt. The Qur’an elsewhere states about the Prophet Muhammad (SAW):

قُلۡ هَٰذِهِۦ سَبِيلِيٓ أَدۡعُوٓاْ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ ۚ عَلَىٰ بَصِيرَةٍ أَنَا۠ وَمَنِ ٱتَّبَعَنِي ۖ وَسُبۡحَٰنَ ٱللَّهِ وَمَآ أَنَا۠ مِنَ ٱلۡمُشۡرِكِينَ

Translation: Say, ‘This is my way: I call unto Allah on sure knowledge, I and those who follow me. And Holy is Allah; and I am not of those who associate gods with God.’

[Quran: 12:108]

That is to say, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and his followers did not accept this religion based on conjecture; rather, through direct observation and revelation they came to recognize the truth. It is clear that those who accept something through such knowledge cannot experience doubt or uncertainty about it.

What this actually refers to is the people who argue and dispute. The verse repeats the objections of the disbelievers, who claimed that the Quran’s words caused doubt in their minds. Allah responds by saying that if they think this, they should ask those people who, before them, have read the Quran and benefited from it. They will see that the Quran does not create doubt, but brings clarity and certainty to those who understand it.

By saying, “ask those who have been reading the book before thee”, the verse also makes it clear that person needs a teacher, because understanding spiritual knowledge requires a certain level of spirituality. Therefore, when studying a revealed book, one should not decide on matters about which they have doubts without consulting the experts, as the understanding of a revealed book is granted according to spirituality.

Surah Yunus (10:94) in Light of Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad’s Tafseer-e-Kabeer

All these arguments that Christians raise were already addressed over 80 years ago in Hazrat Mirza Bashir-ud-Din Mahmud Ahmad’s Tafseer-e-Kabeer, published in 1940. This passage from Tafseer-e-Kabeer refutes the objections raised by Christians regarding this verse:

The doubters cannot be the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). The words “So if you are in doubt…” (فَإِنْ كُنْتَ فِي شَكٍّ) cannot refer to the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), because the one upon whom revelation is sent cannot have doubt. Therefore, what is meant by this is the people who differ and dispute. The Holy Qur’an cannot be something that produces doubt. Nor does this verse mean that the Qur’an creates doubt. Rather, in this place the words of the disbelievers’ objection have been repeated. They used to say that the expressions of the Holy Qur’an create doubts in our minds. Allah the Almighty repeats their own words and says: O objector, if according to you this speech produces doubts, then ask those people who, before you, have read the Holy Qur’an and have benefited from it—ask them what kind of illumination and light this Book has granted to their hearts. By questioning them, you will come to know that this speech is not something that creates doubt, but rather something that creates certainty.

For teaching, it is necessary not only to have a book, but also to have a human teacher. From this verse, it becomes clearly evident that a book alone is not sufficient. A person is also in need of a teacher, because for the unveiling of spiritual knowledge, a certain level of spirituality is also required. Therefore, when a person studies a revealed book, he should not make any decision regarding matters about which he has doubts without asking the experts of that book. Because if the book is revealed, then surely its understanding will be granted in accordance with spirituality.

Some people mistakenly think that the ones who are in doubt are the Noble Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and his companions, and that those whom he is commanded to ask are the Jews and the Christians. But as has already been proven earlier, the Noble Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) cannot be meant by this, nor can his companions. Because regarding them, the Holy Qur’an says elsewhere:

“Say: This is my way: I call to Allah with clear insight—I and those who follow me.” (Yusuf 12:109)

Meaning: Say that I and my followers do not accept this religion merely on the basis of conjecture; rather, through direct observation we have come to know the truthfulness of the Holy Qur’an. And it is obvious that those who accept something through observation cannot fall into doubt and uncertainty regarding it. The next verse also shows that in this place the Noble Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) cannot be the one being addressed

[Tafseer-e-Kabeer. vol 4, pg. 178-179]

Conclusion

The Islamic Dilemma relies on a false understanding of numerous ayahs. One key verse cited is 10:94, but it actually addresses disbelievers who doubt the Quran, instructing them to consult those who have understood and benefited from the Quran.

Since time immemorial, it has been the way of the cowards that they shut down those they cannot answer. This is what Pakistani government does with Ahmadi Muslims. They have banned our literature, our events and even publication of our material for our Ahmadi Muslims.

On February 11th, 2026, they have now banned our website WhiteMinaret as well.

The Ahmadiyyah Muslim Jama’ah is one of the most censored Islamic communities in the world. When our critics cannot win against us in open debates and discussions, they take a different approach. They ban our websites, books, and educational materials to prevent their audiences from hearing our arguments.

This widespread censorship creates a surprising situation. When non-Ahmadi Muslims debate with us for the first time, they are often shocked. They discover that what they’ve been told about us doesn’t match reality.

Our opponents may ban us in Pakistan, but they cannot ban us everywhere. Our message continues to reach people around the world who are willing to listen.

The document that was emailed to us is attached:

Anti-Ahmadis claim that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) is a Kafir for declaring Jihad of the Sword against the British as Unislamic. They also claim that he is a British agent. With this argument, these people have declared all their scholars as British agent and Kafir. In this article, we will show not only the Sunni scholars declaring Jihad against British as Haram, but also going many steps further in proving their loyalty and servitude to the British Empire.

Jihad against British Haram

Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi

“Jihad is not obligatory for us, the Muslims of India, on the basis of the Qur’an. He who holds that it is obligatory is an opponent to the Muslims and intends to harm them!”

[al-Mahajjat al-Mu’tamana, p. 208]

Ashraf Ali Thanvi al-Deobandi

“If Allah gave us government then we will keep the British as our subjects but with utmost comfort and peace because they kept us in peace.”

[Malfoozat Hakeem-ul-Ummat, vol. 6, p. 102]

Rashid Ahmad Gangohi al-Deobandi

“The Deobandis, as described above, used the services of officials in supporting their management of the school. They made sure that they conformed in every way to a posture of loyalty.

Rashid Ahmad, for this reason, refused to accept a grant of 5,000 rupees a year from the Shah of Afghanistan for fear that a political link might be suspected.

And the school celebrated ceremonial occasions like coronations with appropriate pomp, and observed times of crises, like Queen Victoria’s last illness, with fitting prayers and messages.”

[Islamic Revival in British India, p. 154]

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan

“Since the Muslims were living in peace they could, in no case, come out for Jihad against the Government.”

[Asbab-e-Baghawat-e-Hind, p. 8]

Ottomon Khalifa, Sultan Abdul Majeed

“Rather in 1857, an order was taken from Sultan Abdul Majeed, in his capacity as a Caliph, that Muslims must not fight the British and must obey them.”

[Naqsh-e-Hayat, vol. 2, pg. 631]

Maulvi Muhammad Husayn Batalwi

Some of our Muslim brothers believe that the present misfortunes of the followers of Islam cannot be removed without the sword. It is no use acquiring worldly education. However, looking at the present condition of the Muslims, this belief appears improbable.”

“Brethren! the age of the sword is no more. Now instead of the sword it is necessary to wield the pen. How can the sword come into the hands of the Muslims when they have no hands. They have no national identity or existence. In such a useless and weak condition, to consider them as a nation is to exceed the imagination of Shaikh Chilli (a proverbial, comical figure in Urdu fiction).”

[Isha’at-as-Sunnah, vol. vi, no. 12, December 1883, p. 364]
[Book Link]

“In terms of the true meaning of jihad, Sayyid Nazir Husain of Delhi did not consider the 1857 rebellion to be Islamic legal jihad. He thought it to be faithlessness, breach of covenant, and mischief, and declared it to be a sin to take part or help in it.”

[Isha’at-as-Sunnah, vol. vi, no. 10, December 1883, p. 288]

In our Ahle-Hadith Madhab, the ruler under which we live under in peace, doing jihad is haram

[Isha’at-as-Sunnah, vol. 10, no 25, page 36]
[Book Link]
[Computerized Urdu]

ہندوستان کے تمام طبقات رعایا سے صرف یہی ایک فرقہ اہلحدیث (؟) ہے۔ جو اس سلطنت کے زیر سایہ رہنے کو بلحاظ امن و آزادی، اسلامی سلطنتوں کے زیر سایہ رہنے سے بھی بہتر جانتا ہے، کیونکہ اس فرقہ کو بجز اس سلطنت کے کسی اور سلطنت میں (اسلامی کیوں نہ ہو ) پوری آزادی حاصل نہیں ۔

Among all the subjects of India, the Ahl-al-hadith are the only sect of Muslims (?) who know living under the shadow of this empire in terms of peace and freedom is better than living under the shadow of Islamic empires, because this sect does not have full freedom in any other empire (even if it is Islamic) except in this empire.

[Isha’at-as-Sunnah, vol. 9, no. 19, 194-195]
[Computerized Urdu]

This makes sense as there was extreme bad blood between the Ahnaaf and the Ahle Hadith in India. For example, if an Ahle Hadith did Rafa Yadain in a Hanafi Mosque he could be beaten and kicked out of the mosque. Ahmad Raza Khan, who defended traditional Hanafi Orthodoxy, in India said that Wahabis are not only Kafir but also Wajib ul Qatl and that they are followers of Satan.

“The King of Turkey is a Muslim King but so far as law and order and administration are concerned (leaving aside the religious aspect) the British Government is also of no less pride for us, the Muslims more so for the people who are known as Ahl-i-Hadees, this Government is of a greater pride for peace and freedom of conscience (as compared with Turkey, Iran and Khurasan)”

[Ishatus-Sunnah, vol. VI, Shumara 10, p. 292]
[Book Link]

Maulana Muhammad Hussain Batalawi severely condemned the 1857 mutineers who rebelled against the British. He writes:

“Uninformed Muslims should examine this implication and bear it in mind, and not consider fighting with every rival faith on account of its unbelief to be legal jihad. To fight with peaceful or covenanted people most definitely cannot be legal jihad, whether national or religious, but is rebellion and sedition. The Muslims who took part in the 1857 rebellion were serious sinners, and according to the Quran and Hadith they were rebels, mischief makers and wicked *(BAGHI Aur BAD KIRDAR). Most of the ordinary people among them were like beasts. Those known as the prominent and the Ulama were unacquainted with true faith, or lacking in understanding. Knowledgable Ulema did not participate in the rebellion nor did they sign the Fatawa for Jihad.”

[Al-Iqtisad fi masa’il al-Jihad, P. 49 – Rebels are Beasts]

“To fight against this government [i.e. British rule of India] or to aid those who fight against it, even though they
be one’s Muslim brothers, is clear treachery and haram.”

[Al-Iqtisad fi masa’il al-jihad, p. 49]

Maulvi Muhammad Hussain Batalvi sent his said ruling in relation to Jihad against the British:

Moulvi Mahomed Hossein, one of the leading and most influential Mowahideens of Lahore, when asked to give his opinion as to whether it was lawful to take up arms against the British, replied that a religious war against the British Government, or any other Government which allowed perfect freedom in religious mat ters, so far from being countenanced by the Mahomedan Law of jehad, was opposed to the doctrines of Islam. In proof of his assertion, he compiled a treatise entitled ‘ Jehad,’ in which he most ably and conclusively demonstrated that jehad against a Government like the British was unlawful and equal to a rebellion against a lawful king, and those who took any part in such a war deserved to be treated as rebels.

[Interpertation of Wahabiya, pg 105-106]

Battalvi lies that he does not believe in the Mahdi and Messiah that fights the non-Muslims using the sword. As per him, Mahdi will only use heavenly signs in support of his claim as the Bukhari has the hadith that the war will be abolished at the time of the Messiah.

This contradicts the “Sunni” view which claims that the Mahdi and Messiah will have armies and fight governments using the sword and kill all disbelievers. No non-Muslim will be left alive until they are done with their mission. Everyone will either accept Islam or will be killed.

He could not put forth this belief in front of the government, so he lied to the public and wrote lengthy articles in his magazine and the English Magazine, like below:

“It is also untrue to say that the belief in the coming of Masih and Mahdi is dangerous, for the learned Muhammadans do not believe that the Promised Masih and Mahdi will propagate Islam by the sword. According to Sahih Bukhari, a book unanimously believed to be an authority by Sunnis, the promised Masih will put an end to all fighting and will propagate Islam simply by means of heavenly signs and spiritual powers. Imam Mahdi will also come at the same time and there shall be no bloodshed and no Jehad. Islam will be spread by peaceful methods. I have written a lengthy article on the subject and it is about to be published shortly, so I need not go into details here, but I may declare it most emphatically that the Muhammedan belief in the coming of Masih and Mahdi does in no way constitute a danger to the country’s peace.”

[Civil & Military Gazette (Lahore) – 19 July 1907]

Maulana Sayyid Nadhir Hussain of Delhi – Founder of Ahle Hadith in India

Maulana Sayyid Nadhir Hussain of Delhi (1805-1902) was a very prominent and influential Salafi (Ahlul Hadith) scholar in British India. Today’s Ahlul Hadith of the Indian subcontinent look up to him as a very important scholarly figure. He was the highest Ahl-i hadith theologian.He made it explicitly clear that Jihad against the British government was prohibited:

پس جب کہ شرط جہاد کی اس دیار میں معدوم ہوئی، تو جہاد کرنا یہاں سبب ہلاکت اور معصیت کا ہوگا۔

“Since the criterion of Jihad is absent from this land, to conduct Jihad here would be a means of destruction and a sin.”

[Fatawa Naziriya; v. 3, p. 275]

Nazir Husayn Delawi says this after putting four conditions of Jihad and says that there is no reason to do. Jihad in British India. Here is more context.

“Shaikh al-Kul Maulana Syed Muhammad Nazeer Hussain Muhaddis Dehlavi (may Allah have mercy on him) writes: ‘So I say that in this era, none of these four conditions are present — so why would Jihad take place? It absolutely will not take place…’”

[Fatawa Nazeeriya, vol: 3, pg: 284]

ہندوستان میں اس وقت انگریزی حکومت ہے وہاں ہر مذہب والا آزادی کے ساتھ اپنے شعار مذہب کے ادا کرنے کا مجاز ہے۔ کوئی مسلمان نہ جمعہ سے روکا جاتا ہے نہ جماعت سے اور یہاں اسلامی سرزمین اور مسلمانوں کی حکومت میں ہم لوگ طواف کعبہ اور جمعہ و جماعت سے مجبور ہیں۔

At present there is British rule in India where every religious person is allowed to freely practice the tenets of their faith. No Muslim is barred from Jummah or Jamaat, yet in this Islamic land and under a Muslim government, we are prevented from Tawaaf e Kaaba and Jummah and Jamaat.

We are but helpless to say that the English Government is God’s Mercy (Khuda Ki Rehmat) for Muslims of Hindustan.

[Al Hayat Baad Al Mamat, p. 91]

It is noted about him by Muhammad Husayn Batalvi:

“In terms of the true meaning of jihad, Sayyid Nazir Husain of Delhi did not consider the1857 rebellion to be Islamic legal jihad. He thought it to be faithlessness, breach of covenant, and mischief, and declared it to be a sin to take part or help in it.”

[Ishatus-Sunna, vol. vi, no. 10, October 1883, p. 288]

“Maulavi Nuzir Husein is a leading Moulavi in Dehli who in difficult times has proved his loyalty to the British Government and in his pilgrimage to Mecca Thope any British Officer whose help or protection he may need will afford it to him as he most fully deserves it.”

(Signed) J.D.Tremlett BCS. Commissioner & Sup Delhi Division.

AUGUST 10, 1883.

[Ishatus Sunnah, vol. 6, no. 10, pg. 294]
[Al Hayat Baad Al Mamat, pg. 83]

Maulvi Nawab Sideeq Hasan Khan Bhopali – Co-founder of Ahle Hadith in India

He was an eminent Ahl-i hadith religious scholar as well as a political leader. In his book Tarjuman-i Wahhabiyyat, he wrote:

“No Muslim subject of India and the Indian states bears malice towards this great power….This book has been written to inform the British government that no Muslim subject of India and the Indian states
bears malice towards this great power.”

[Edition published in Lahore, 1895, Tarjuman-i Wahhabiyyat, p. 6]

عیسائی لوگ ہو جا دینگے تمام ہوا مضمون احادیث وغیرہ کا ان حدیثوں سے یہ بات معلوم ہوئی کہ اگر چہ حکومت اسلام کی ضعیف ہو جاوے یا جاتی رہی لکن بالکل مسلمان دنیا سے نہیں مٹین کے یہانتک کہ قیامت آجاوے اور طول و عرض دولت عیسائیوں کا بہت ہوگا اور یہ لوگ سب پر غالب اور حاکم ہو جا وینگے چنانچہ مطابق او سکے دیکھا سنا ہوجا اس دیکھا جاتا ہے پیس نکر کرنا اون لوگون کا جو اپنے حکم مذہبی سے جاہل ہیں اس امر مین کے سکوت برٹش سٹ جیا وے اور بیہ امن و امان جو آج حاصل ہے فساد کے پردہ میں جہاد کا نام لیکر اوٹھا دیا جا رے سخت نادانی و بیوقوفی کی بات ہے بہلا ان نا عاقبت اندیشون کا ہا ہوگایا اویس سید صادق کا فرمایا ہوا جسکا کہا ہوا آج ہم آنکھوں سے دیکھہ رہے ہیں۔

“Christians will dominate everywhere — this is the essence of the discussion based on Hadith. From these Hadiths, it is understood that even if Islamic rule becomes weak or disappears, Muslims will never be completely wiped out from the world until the Day of Judgment. The dominion and expanse of Christian power will be vast, and they will become dominant and rulers over all. This is exactly what we are seeing and hearing today. To incite unrest under the guise of Jihad during this peaceful and secure time — when British rule has brought stability — is sheer ignorance and foolishness. What has become of those shortsighted people? It is just as Syed Sadiq had said, and we are witnessing his words come true before our eyes.”

[Tarjuman-i Wahhabiyyat, p. 10]

“During the mutiny [of 1857], some rajas and so-called nawabs and men of means interfered in the peace and calm of India under the name of jihad, and they fanned the flames of battle till their disorder and hostility reached such a level that women and children, who cannot be killed under any law, were thoughtlessly slaughtered. … If anyone lets loose such mischief today, he would also be the same kind of trouble-maker, and from beginning to end he would stain the name of Islam.”

[Tarjaman e Wahabiyyah pages 22-26]

“In the treacherous era, those people who fought against the British government and broke their oath – that was not jihad, it was depravity.”

[Tarjaman e Wahabiyyah pages 54]

“No sect in our research is more benevolent, peace-loving, desirous of the comfort and tranquility of the public, and appreciative of a fair government than the group that calls itself Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Hadith (People of the Sunnah and Hadith), and it is not a Muqallid of any particular Madhab”

[Tarjaman e Wahabiyyah pages 58]

The Nawab of Bhopal also declared that whosoever acted against the British Raj in India, he:

One who is insincere and violates his promises is, according to his own religion, looked upon as having committed a great sin; and to what punishment is such a man to be ultimately doomed will be perfectly known on the Day of Judgment. In short, such a man is a loser in this as well as in the world to come. When the laws of Mahomed enjoin the fulfilment of our promises during the whole term of a treaty, it is incumbent upon every native Prince or Chief to observe the same till the period of its close, and faithfully carry it out without a thought of violating it.

[Interpreter of Wahabism page 39]

” The current number of the Ishaatus-sunnat contains a long leading article under the heading ‘ Wahabis,’ attempting to prove that the Wahabis of India (who in the article under notice are styled as Mowahideens) are as good and loyal subjects of the Queen as any other section of the Mahomedan community. The article in question commences by stating that the name ‘ Wahabi ‘ is regarded by the Mowahideens in the same light as that of bidati, that is> superstitious, by the Sunnis. The reasons why they regard it so are many. In the first place the word whatever be its meaning from a religious and literary point of view has long been associated with disloyalty, as the Sunnis have long laboured to impress on the rulers of the country, that Mowahideens of India, like the Wahabis of Hazara and other frontier tribes, are the enemies of order and peace, and that they hold it lawful to make jehad, or religious war, against the British Government. That the Mowahideens have cleared themselves of this most malicious and serious charge, is evident from the fact that, in 1875 Moulvi Mahomed Hossein, one of the leading and most influential Mowahideens of Lahore, when asked to give his opinion as to whether it was lawful to take up arms against the British, replied that a religious war against the British Government, or any other Government which allowed perfect freedom in religious mat ters, so far from being countenanced by the Mahomedan Law of jehad, was opposed to the doctrines of Islam. In proof of his assertion, he compiled a treatise entitled ‘ Jehad,’ in which he most ably and conclusively demonstrated that jehad against a Government like the British was unlawful and equal to a rebellion against a lawful king, and those who took any part in such a war deserved to be treated as rebels. This pamphlet he caused to be circulated among a large number of the most learned Maulvis of the Punjab and other provinces, for the purpose of eliciting their opinions on the subject and ascertaining whether the quotations made by him in support of his statements were from competent authorities or otherwise. All Maulvis, among whom the treatise in question was circulated, unanimously testified to their entire concurrence with the opinions of Maulvi Mahomed Hossein and declared his authorities to be unimpeachably trustworthy, putting down their signatures and seals on the pamphlet as a mark of concurrence with its contents.

[Khan, Nawab Siddiq Hasan. Interpreter of Wahabism, p.105-106]

“No wise, experienced, and discerning man can for a moment believe that the learned will justify jihad against the British Government, in the present state of India or think that the conditions for it exist; except those Mullas who have had no perfect knowledge of their religion and no correct information.”

[interpreter of Wahabism, p.21,86]

48 References from Tarjaman e Wahabiyyah can be found at this Link where Nawab Sideeq Hasan Khan calls the rebels “stupid”, that jihad against the British is haram, that the British give religious Freedom, and that the rebels were creators of fasad and traitors and tried to ruin the peace established by the British – The full book can be read at this link

Shah Ismail Shaheed Delawi (RH) – Respected by Deobandis, Ahle Hadith, and Ahmadis

He was the deputy of Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi, and died in a battle against the Sikhs. It is written about him:

“A man asked, ‘Why do you not give a pronouncement of jihad against the British?’ He replied: In no way is it obligatory to fight jihad against them. Firstly, we are their subjects. Secondly, they do not interfere in our performance of our religious duties. We have every kind of
freedom under their rule. In fact, if someone attacks them, Muslims must fight the attacker and let not their government be harmed a whit.” ()

[Hayyat Tayyiba, biography on Shah Ismail Shaheed by Mirza Hairat of Delhi, pg 462]

It should be remembered that Mirza Hairat of Delhi was an opponent of Promised Messiah AS and would mock him.

“This was the reason why Maulavi Ismail of Delhi, who knew the Quran and Hadith, and acted upon them, did not fight in his country India against the British, under whose peace and protection he lived, nor did he fight the states of this country. Outside this country, he fought the Sikhs who interfered in the religious practices of the Muslims, prohibiting the loud sounding of the Azan.”

[Al-Iqtisad fi masa’il al-jihad, by Maulavi Muhammad Husain Batalvi, published 1876, pp. 49–50]

Shaykh Muhammad Husayn Batalvi also writes:

Maulana Isma’eel Shaheed waged Jehad against the Sikhs on account of their intervention in the religion of Islam. He composed that particular sermon to motivate others for Jehad. He neither declared Jehad against the British Government, nor does this sermon contain any explicit, or inplicit, reference to waging Jehad against this Government. As a matter of fact, he did not consider it legitimate to wage Jehad against this Government.”

[Isha’at-us-Sunnah, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 11 dated 1886]

A leading follower of the famous Maulavi Muhammad Ismail Shaheed, he wrote:

“War is not jihad. War is called qital, and it only arises now and then. Jihad is to strive to proclaim the word of God, and this goes on for a long period. It is only your misconception that you term qital as jihad.”

[Swaaneh Ahmadi, by Maulvi Muhammad Ja’afar Thanesari, p. 108]

More references for Maulana Shah Ismail Delawi RH

Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi (d. 1831) – Respected by Ahle Hadith, Deobandis, and Ahmadis

He was a Muslim military and religious leader who fought against Sikh rule in the North West of India, and is regarded as a mujaddid of the thirteenth century Hijrah. It is recorded about him:

When he was going forth to conduct jihad against the Sikhs, a man asked him: ‘Why do you go so far to fight jihad against the Sikhs, when the British are ruling the country and they are deniers of Islam. Conduct jihad against them in every house and wrest India from them; millions of people will support and help you’

The British Government—although a disbeliever in Islam—does not treat the Muslims with any cruelty or high-handedness, nor does it prevent them from attending to their religious obligations or observing the obligatory acts of worship. I preach and propagate (the Faith) in their kingdom but they never impede or oppose it. Rather, if someone commits any excess against us, they are ready to punish him. Our real task is the propagation of Tauheed—the Unity of God—and the renaissance of the Sunnah—precepts—of the Chief of all the Messengers—which we perform without let or hindrance in this country. So why should we wage a Jehad against the British Government and, contrary to the principles of our Faith, needlessly shed blood on either side.”

[Swaaneh Ahmadi, by Maulvi Muhammad Ja’afar Thanesari, p. 71]

“The British government has granted Muslims the freedom to fulfill their religious duties.”

[Swaaneh Ahmadi, by Maulvi Muhammad Ja’afar Thanesari, p. 115]

Those who did Rebellion against British were Mushrik/Sinners/Animal

“No one has heard even to the present day that a Muwahhid (monotheist) obedient to the ordinances of Mahomed, the Koran and the Hadis, has ever violated his promise, been faithless or intent upoen violence and rebellion. All those who proved troublesome to, and rebellious against, the British officials were mukallids of the Hanafia church, and not the followers of the Hadis.”

[Interpreter of Wahabism, p.41]

Scholars getting paid by British

“The agricultural land that Allah Almighty has granted me through the government is 4 Murabba (100 acres) in size.”

[Ishaatus Sunnah, vol. 19, no. 1, 1902]

https://ia803107.us.archive.org/25/items/al-iqtesad-fi-masailil-jehad-muhammad-hussain-batalvi/al-iqtesad-fi-masailil-jehad-muhammad-hussain-batalvi.pdf

https://qutbi.amuslim.org/index.php?p=nayy%20b%20pocket%20book/jihad%20haram%20aor%20angraiz%20hukumat%20jawab/other/programm%208%20hawaly

https://qutbi.amuslim.org/index.php?p=nayy%20b%20pocket%20book/jihad%20haram%20aor%20angraiz%20hukumat%20jawab/other/programm%207%20hawaly

1) Syed Ahmad Barelvi Angraiz Dost Ya Angraiz Dushman By Inayat Ullah Chishti Chakralavi – Article

Critics of Ahmadi Muslims make two contradictory claims about our beliefs. Some say we reject the Quranic verse “Khataman Nabiyyin” and the hadith “La Nabiyya Ba’adi” (no prophet after me). Others say we’ve invented our own twisted interpretation.

Both claims are completely false.

Here’s what happened: Early heretical groups like the Mutazilites and Jahmites rejected the idea that the Messiah would return in the latter days. Their argument? “The Quran says Muhammad ﷺ is the Seal of Prophets, and the hadith says there’s no prophet after him. So no prophet can ever come again.“

Islamic scholars had to respond to this denial. They clarified that “La Nabiyya Ba’adi” doesn’t mean no prophet will ever come. It means no prophet bringing a new law (Shari’a) will come after Muhammad ﷺ. This interpretation protects the Islamic belief in the Messiah’s return while still affirming that Muhammad ﷺ is the final law-bearing prophet.

This is exactly what Ahmadi Muslims believe today. On the other hand, the anti-Ahmadis are following the ways of the Jahmites and Mutazilites.

In this article, we will post the references of the Muslim scholars claiming that La nabiyya Ba’adi = There is no LAW-BEARING Prophet after me.

Ibn Qutaibah (d. 267H)

وأما قول عائشة ﵂:”قولوا لرسول الله ﷺ خاتم الأنبياء، ولا تقولوا لا نبي بعده”؛ فإنها تذهب إلى نزول عيسى ﵇، وليس هذا من قولها، ناقضا لقول النبي ﷺ:”لا نبي بعدي”لأنه أراد: لا نبي بعدي، ينسخ ما جئت به، كما كانت الأنبياء صلى الله عليهم وسلم تبعث بالنسخ، وأرادت هي:”لا تقولوا إن المسيح لا ينزل بعده”.

“As for the statement of Aisha ﵂: “Say that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ is the Seal of the Prophets, and do not say there is no prophet after him”; she is referring to the descent of Jesus. The interpretation put forth by her (Hazrat Aishah (ra)), does not contradict the words of the Holy Prophet (sa). The Holy Prophet (sa) meant that there would be no Prophet after him who would abrogate his law.

[Ta’wilu Mukhtalifil-Ahadith, p. 236]

Qadi ‘Iyad (d. 544H)

Imam Nawawi quotes Qadi Iyad where he is refuting the Muslim sects like Jahmites and Mutazalites. These sects used the hadith “There is no prophet after me” and the Quran 33:40 “he is the seal of the prophets” to reject the Nuzul of the Messiah in the latter days.

Qadi Iyad claims that the hadith does not mean that no prophet will ever come after the Prophet Muhammad (SAW). Rather, it means that no prophet with a NEW law will not come. His Ta’wil (interpretation) of this hadith is exactly like how Ahmadi Muslims do.

قَوْلُهُ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ (فيبعث الله عيسى بن مريم) أى ينزله من السماء حاكما بشر عنا وَقَدْ سَبَقَ بَيَانُ هَذَا فِي كِتَابِ الْإِيمَانِ قَالَ الْقَاضِي رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى نُزُولُ عِيسَى عَلَيْه السَّلَامُ وَقَتْلُهُ الدَّجَّالَ حَقٌّ وَصَحِيحٌ عِنْدَ أَهْلِ السُّنَّةِ لِلْأَحَادِيثِ الصَّحِيحَةِ فِي ذَلِكَ وَلَيْسَ فى العقل ولافى الشَّرْعِ مَا يُبْطِلُهُ فَوَجَبَ إِثْبَاتُهُ وَأَنْكَرَ ذَلِكَ بعض المعتزلة والجهيمة وَمَنْ وَافَقَهُمْ وَزَعَمُوا أَنَّ هَذِهِ الْأَحَادِيثَ مَرْدُودَةٌ بقوله تعالى وخاتم النبيين وَبِقَوْلِهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَا نَبِيَّ بعدى وباجماع المسلمين أنه لانبى بَعْدَ نَبِيِّنَا صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَأَنَّ شريعته مؤبدة إلى يوم القيامة لاتنسخ وَهَذَا اسْتِدْلَالُ فَاسِدٌ لِأَنَّهُ لَيْسَ الْمُرَادُ بِنُزُولِ عِيسَى عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ أَنَّهُ يَنْزِلُ نَبِيًّا بِشَرْعٍ ينسخ شرعنا ولا فى هذه الأحاديث ولافى غَيْرِهَا شَيْءٌ مِنْ هَذَا بَلْ صَحَّتْ هَذِهِ الْأَحَادِيثُ هُنَا وَمَا سَبَقَ فِي كِتَابِ الْإِيمَانِ وَغَيْرِهَا أَنَّهُ يَنْزِلُ حَكَمًا مُقْسِطًا بِحُكْمِ شَرْعِنَا وَيُحْيِي مِنْ أُمُورِ شَرْعِنَا مَا هَجَرَهُ النَّاسُ

Al-Qāḍī, may Allah have mercy upon him, stated: The descent of ʿĪsā, peace be upon him, and his slaying of the Dajjāl (Antichrist) is a true and established belief according to Ahl al-Sunnah, due to the authentic hadiths regarding this matter. There is nothing in reason nor in the Sacred Law that invalidates it, therefore it must be affirmed.

However, some of the Muʿtazilah, the Jahmiyyah, and those who followed them denied this. They claimed that these hadiths are rejected based on Allah’s statement “the Seal of the Prophets,” and based on his saying, peace and blessings be upon him, “There is no prophet after me,” and based on the consensus of the Muslims that there is no prophet after our Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and that his Sacred Law is perpetual until the Day of Resurrection and will not be abrogated.

This is faulty reasoning, because the intended meaning of the descent of ʿĪsā, peace be upon him, is not that he will descend as a prophet with a Law that abrogates our Law. Nothing of this sort exists in these hadiths or in any others. Rather, these hadiths here, and what preceded in the Book of Faith and elsewhere, have authentically established that he will descend as a just judge ruling by our Sacred Law, and he will revive aspects of our Sacred Law that people have abandoned.

[Sharh Nawawi Sahih Muslim]

Ibn ʿArabī (d. 637H)

Ibn Arabi also explains there will be no prophet after Muhammad (SAW) that will abrogate his Shariah as it is a complete and final law.

فإن النبوة التي انقطعت بوجود رسول الله إنما هي نبوة التشريع لا مقامها، فلا شرع يكون ناسخاً لشرعه ، ولا يزيد في حكمه شرعاً آخر، وهذا معنى قوله : (إِنَّ الرسالة والنبوة قد انْقَطَعَتْ فَلا رَسُولَ بَعْدِي ولا نبي أي لا نبي بعدي يكون على شرع يخالف شرعي، بل إذا كان يكون تحت حكم شريعتي، ولا رسول أي لا رسول بعدي إلى أحد من خلق الله يشرع يدعوهم إليه، فهذا هو الذي انقطع وسدّ بابه لا مقام النبوة

That the Prophethood that ended by the Holy Prophet (SAW) is only a law bearing prophethood … Therefore, no law can come to abrogate the Shariah of Prophet (SAW), nor add any command to it, and this is the meaning of the saying of Prophet (SAW) that prophethood and messengership has been terminated. “لا رَسُولَ بَعْدِي ولا نبي” i.e no prophet can come after me who is on another Shariah other than mine. But yes, a prophet can come in such a case that he comes under the command of my Shariah…

[Al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya, vol. 3, pg. 6]

فما ارتفعت النبوة بالكلية، ولهذا قلنا: إنما ارتفعت نبوة التشريع، فهذا معنى لا نبي بعده، وكذلك من حفظ القرآن فقد أدرجت النبوة بين جنبيه فقد قامت به النبوة بلا شك فعلمنا أن قوله : لا نبي بعده أي لا مشرع . يكون بعده نبي، فهذا مثل قوله : إذا هلك كسرى فلا كسرى بعده، وإذا هلك قيصر فلا قيصر بعده

That prophethood has not been taken away completely. That is why I said that only law bearing prophethood has ended and this is the meaning of لا نبي بعده. Thus, I have understood that the purpose of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) saying لا نبي بعده and it is in the same meaning that no one will one will be after me who brings a new Shariah because there is no prophet after Muhammad (SAW). It is exactly same as the Prophet (SAW) saying that after this Khosrau dies, there will be no Khosrau after him and after the Caesar dies, there will be no Caesar after him.

[Al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya, vol. 3, pg. 88]

فَالنُّبُوَّةُ سَارِيَةٌ إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ فِي الْخَلْقِ وَإِنْ كَانَ التَّشْرِيعُ قَدِ انْقَطَعَ فَالتَّشْرِيعُ جُزْءٌ مِنْ أَجْزَاءِ النُّبُوَّةِ

Prophethood will continue until the Day of Judgement, although, the bringing of a new Shariah (law) has ended. Thus, the bringing of Sharia (law) is one part among the many parts of prophethood.

[Al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya, vol. 3, pg. 135]

Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728H)

Ibn Taymiyyah also explains that the meaning of Khatam al-Rusul is that there will be no prophet after Muhammad (SAW) that will abrogate his Shariah as it is a complete and final law.

كما نصر الله محمدًا على أعدائه، وقال: في كل الدهور سلطانه كامل ليس له فناء، وهذا صفة خاتم الرسل الذى لا يأتي بعده نبى ينسخ شرعه وسلطانه بالحجة واليد كامل لا يحتاج فيه إلى الاستعانة بشرع آخر، وشرعه ثابت باق إلى آخر الدهر

Just as Allah granted victory to Muhammad over his enemies, and said: ‘In all ages his authority is perfected, having no end.’ This is the attribute of the Seal of the Messengers, after whom no prophet comes to abrogate his law. His authority, through proof and power, is perfected, needing no assistance from another law. His law is firm and enduring until the end of time.

[Al-Jawāb al-Ṣaḥīḥ li-man baddala dīn al-Masīh, pg 500]

Abd al-Karim al-Jili bin Ibrahim Jillani (d. 831H)

Jili was a descendant of the Sufi saint Abdul Qadir Gilani, the founder of the Qadiriyya dervish order.

فَانْقَطَعَ حُكْمُ النُّبُوَّةِ التَّشْرِيْعِ بَعْدَهُ وَكَانَ مُحَمَّدٌ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ خَاتَمَ النبيين

The command of Law bearing Prophethood ended with the Prophet (SAW). Thus, this is why Prophet (SAW) is called Khataman Nabiyyin.

[Al-Insan-ul-Kamil, pg. 120]

Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 910)

قلنا: هذا الحديث بهذا اللفظ باطل

قال الزاعم: الدليل حديث لا نبي بعدي

قلنا: يا مسكين لا دلالة على هذا الحديث بوجه من الوجوه لأن المراد : لا يحدث بعدي نبي بشرع ينسخ شرعي. كما فسره بذلك ثم يقال لهذا الزاعم : هل أنت آخذ بظاهر الحديث فإن هذا يلزمك أحد أمرين: اما نفي نزول عيسى عليه السلام ، أو نفي النبوة عنه ، وكلاهما كفر

What is meant is that “No prophet will come after me” with a Shariah that abrogates the Shariah [of Islam]…

Then this claimant will be asked: do you take this hadith literally and disagree with our interpretation? Then, you must choose one of two options-either deny Jesus’s descent or deny his prophethood when he descends. Both options are deemed to be kufr!

[Nuzūl ʿĪsā ibn Maryam ākhir al-zamān, pg 53]

Mujaddad Alf Thani (d. 971H)

“Following the advent of Hazrat Muhammad, the Chosen One, the Seal of the Prophets(sa), the attainment of the attributes of prophethood by his followers as subordinate or by way of inheritance, will in no way conflict with his status as the Seal of the Prophets. So do not be amongst the doubters.”

[Maktubat Imam Rabbani, Book 1, Maktub no. 301, vol. 2, p. 775]

Hazrat Imam ‘Abdul-Wahhab Sha’rani (d. 976H)

“نَبِيَّ بَعْدِي وَلَا رَسُولَ الْمُرَادُ بِهِ لَا مُشَرَعَ بَعْدِي”

“The Holy Prophet’s (sa) statements that there will be no Prophet or no Messenger after him only meant that there will be no law-bearing Prophet after him.”

[al-Yawaqit wal-Jawahir, vol. 2, p. 35]

Mulla ‘Ali Al-Qari (d. 1013H)

ومع هذا لو عاش إبراهيم وصار نبيا، وكذا لو صار عمر نبيا لكانا من أتباعه عليه الصلاة والسلام كعيسى والخضر وإلياس عليهم السلام. فلا يناقض قولَه تعالى: (وخاتم النبيين) إذ المعنى أنه لا يأتي نبي بعده ينسخ ملته ولم يكن من أمته

Had Ibrahim lived and become a prophet, and likewise had Umar become a prophet they would be follower prophets of the Holy Prophet , peace and blesings of Allah be upon him, like Isa, Khidar and Ilyas upon whom all be peace. It does not contradict the divine word ‘Khataman Nabiyyeen’ which means that there shall not be a prophet abrogating his law nor one who was not of his Ummah.

[Al-Asrar Al-Marfu’a Fil-Akhbar Al-Mawdu’a, pg. 183]

Shah Waliyyullah Muhaddith Dehlavi (d. 1175H)

He is also a Mujaddid (reformer) of the 12th century and respected by almost everyone (Barelwis, Deobandis, Ahl-e-Hadith, Najdis, and Ahmadis)

فعلِمنا بقوله عليه الصلاة والسلام: لا نبي بعدي ولا رسول، وأن النبوة قد انقطعت والرسالة، إنما يريد بها التشريع

“From the words La Nabiyya ba’di used by the Holy Prophet (sa), we learn with certainty that there would be no Prophet after him who would bring a new Law or Shari’ah.”

[Qurratul-‘Ainain fi Tafdilish-Shaikhain, p. 319]

وخُتم به النبييون.. أي لا يوجد من يأمره الله سبحانه بالتشريع على الناس

“The closing of prophethood with the Holy Prophet^saw means that there can be no divinely inspired reformer after him who would be commissioned with a new law by Allah”

[Tafheemat-e-Ilahiyya, vol. 2, pg. 85]

Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Rasul al-Barzanji (d. 1103H)

In his Sharh of Mishkat al-Masabih, he writes

ورد “لا نبي بعدي” ومعناه عند العلماء أنه لا يحدث بعده نبي بشرع ينسخ شرعه

According to the Ulema, the meaning of the hadith لا نبي بعدي (There is no prophet after me) is that there will no prophet will be given a Shariah that abrogates the Shariah of Muhammad (SAW).

[Isha’ah li-Ashrat al-Sa’ah, pg. 139]

Qasim Nanotwi (d. 1297H)

Founder of the Deoband Movement.

سو عوام کے خیال میں تو رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کا خاتم ہونا بایں معنی ہے کہ آپ کا زمانہ انبیاء سابق کے زمانے کے بعد اور آپ سب میں آخری نبی ہیں مگر اہل فہم پر روشن ہوگا کہ تقدم و تاخر زمانی میں بالذات کچھ فضیلت نہیں۔ پھر مقام مدح میں وَلكِن رَّسُولَ اللهِ وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّينَ فرمانا اس صورت میں کیوں کر صحیح ہو سکتا ہے۔

According to the layman, the Prophet (SAW), being the KHATAM (seal) means that he must have appeared after all the previous prophets and that he is the last prophet. But men of understanding and the wise know it very well that being the first or the last, chronologically, does not carry any weight. How could, therefore, the words of the Holy Qura’n: ”But he is the Messenger of Allah and the seal of the Prophets” (33:41) glorify him? But I know very well that none from among the Muslims would be prepared to agree with the common men.

[Tahzir un Nas, 14]

اگر بالفرض بعد زمانہ نبوی ﷺ بھی کوئی نبی پیدا ہو تو پھر بھی خاتمیت محمدیؐ میں کچھ فرق نہ آئے گا

Rather, if, hypothetically, after the time of the Prophet (SAW) another Prophet is born, even then it will make no difference to the Khaatamiyyat-e-Muhammadi (Seal of Prophethood of Muhammad) – similarly if another Prophet is his contemporary in another Earth, or even on this Earth another Prophet is made.

[Tahzir un Nas, 63]

Allama Abdul Hayee al-Lucknawi (d.1304)

Maulvi Abdul Hayee Lucknowi Firangi Mahali¹ was a giant among the Ulema of the Ahnaaf residing in India. He was a supporter of Qasim Nanotvi, He Supported Tehzeer un Naas and wrote a book on the same topic. The Deobandi and Nadwi schools of thought particularly respect him.

Maulvi Abdul Hayy, like Qasim Nanautawi (Founder of Deoband) staunchly defended this saying attributed to Sayyidina Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) even though Muhaditheen (scholars of Hadith) consider it as Shaadh (an oddity in the terminology of Hadith science).

The Deobandis in particular passionately defend this Athar and believe in its contents whole-heartedly, while other sects reject it.

One of the objections made against this Athar by those who deny it is that it contradicts the Holy Qur’an’s pronouncement that the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) is the Khaatam an-Nabiyyeen (Seal of the Prophets) so there can not be any prophet after him.

بعد آنحضرت کے یا زمانے میں آنحضرت کے مجرد کسی نبی کا ہونا محال نہیں بلکہ صاحب شرع جدید ہونا البتہ منع ہے۔

After the demise of the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, or even during his own lifetime, it is not an impossibility for someone to be exalted to the position of a simple prophet. But a prophet with a new Law is, indeed, forbidden.

[Dafi Ul Waswas Fi Asr E Ibn E Abbas, pg. 12]

علمائے اہل سنت بھی اس امر کی تصدیق کرتے ہیں کہ آنحضرت صلعم کے عصر میں کوئی نبی صاحب شرع جدیدہ نہیں ہو سکتا اور نبوت آپ کی تمام مکلفین کو شامل ہے اور جو نبی آپ کے ہمعصر ہو گا۔ پس ہر تقدیر بعثت محمد یہ عام ہے۔

The scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah also confirm that no Prophet after Prophet Muhammad (SAW) could bring a new Shariah…

[Dafi Ul Waswas Fi Asr E Ibn E Abbas, pg. 3]

Ulemā Ahle Sunnat also subscribe to the view that following the advent of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be on him) no law-bearing prophet can come. The prophethood of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be on him) is wide in scope. Any prophet who would now come would be from the ummah and follow his sharī‘ah”

[Maulvi Abdul Haye, Majmū‘ah Fatā’wā, Volume 1, Page 17]

Maulana Abdul Hayee Lakhanwee was also asked if a prophet could come from among Indian Subcontinent (mard-e-Hindi) or Afghans who support Muhammad (SAW) and refutes the Christian doctrines and books.

He replied: Yes, It is allowed!

[Majmua al Fatawa Abdul Hayee Lucknowi page 112]

Nawab Ṣiddīq Ḥasan Khān (d. 1307H)

One of the most famous Salafi scholar.

مردودة بقوله تعالى ( وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّنَ )، وبقوله : (لا نبي بعدي) وبإجماع المسلمين أنه لا نبي بعد نبينا وأن شريعته مؤبدة إلى يوم القيامة لا تنسخ وهذا استدلال فاسد لأنه ليس المراد بنزول عيسى عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ أنه ينزل نبيا بشرع ينسخ شرعنا،

“[The objection] is refuted by the statement of Allah (the Exalted): ﴾وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّنَ﴿ (and the Seal of the Prophets), and by his (the Prophet’s) statement: «لا نبي بعدي» (There is no prophet after me), and by the consensus of the Muslims that there is no prophet after our Prophet and that his shariah is permanent until the Day of Judgment and will not be abrogated. This [contrary] argument is invalid, because the meaning of the descent of Jesus (peace be upon him) is not that he will descend as a prophet with a law that abrogates our law.”

[Al-Siraj Al-Wahhaj Fi Kashf Matalib Muslim Bin Al-Hajjaj Sharh Mukhtasar Sahih Muslim Li Al- Hafiz Al-Mundhiri, vol.2, pg. 296]

Nūrul Ḥasan Khān (d. 1335H)

The famous and well-known religious leader of the Ahl-e-Hadith(Salafi), Nawab Siddiq Hassan Khan’s son, Nūrul Hassan Khan Ṣāḥib, who was also a prominent Islāmic scholar of his time states in his book, Iqtirab al-Sa’ah:

“The Hadees “La Wahi b’ada Mautee” has no foundation, although “La Nabiyya Ba’adee” is quite correct, which, according to the people of knowledge, means there shall be no prophet after me who shall bring an abrogating divine system of law.”

[Iqtarabus Sa’at, p.162]

The position of the real Ahlus Sunnati wal Jama’ah concerning Khatam an-Nubuwwah, since time immemorial has been that after Prophet Muhammad (SAW) the advent of law-bearing Prophets is forever terminated and now impossible, but the advent of Prophets who are in obedience and compliance with his Shari’ah has never been ruled out.

Salafi/Najdi scholars (Modern day)

These include notable scholars like Shaykh Abdul-Aziz bin ‘Abdullah bin Baz, Shaykh Muhammad bin Salih Al- Uthaimin, and Shaykh Abdullah bin Abdur-Rahman Al-Jibreen.

There is no contradiction between his descent and the fact that our Prophet. Muhammad is the Last of the Prophets, since ‘Isa will not bring a new Law and the Judgement belongs to Allah, from first to last; He does as He wills and He judges as He wishes, and there is no appeal against His Judgement, for He is the All-Powerful, Most Wise.

[Fatawa Islamiyah, vol 1, pg 307]

Mahmud Khattab al-Subki (d. 1352)

مردودة بقوله تعالى ( وَخَاتَمَ النَّبِيِّنَ )، وبقوله : (لا نبي بعدي) وبإجماع المسلمين أنه لا نبي بعد نبينا وأن شريعته مؤبدة إلى يوم القيامة لا تنسخ وهذا استدلال فاسد لأنه ليس المراد بنزول عيسى عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ أنه ينزل نبيا بشرع ينسخ شرعنا،

[This is] refuted by Allah the Exalted’s saying: ‘and Seal of the Prophets,’ and by his [the Prophet’s] saying: ‘There is no prophet after me,’ and by the consensus of Muslims that there is no prophet after our Prophet, and that his law is perpetual until the Day of Resurrection and will not be abrogated. This [objection] is a corrupt argument because what is not intended by the descent of Jesus, peace be upon him, is that he descends as a prophet with a law that abrogates our law.

[Ad Deen Al Khalis, vol. 1, pg. 95]

Muhammed Maftuhin Tamini

قال الأشقر في القيامة الصغرى: “يقول النووي في رده على المكذبين بنزول عيســى الزاعمين أن نزوله لو كان حقاً فإنّه يكون مناقضاً لقوله عليه السلام: لا نبي بعدي، وأنه يكون بذلك ناسخاً لشرع الرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلّم. هذا الاستدلال فاسد، لأنه ليس المراد بنزول عيسى عليه السلام أنّه ينزل نبياً بشرع ينسخ

Al-Ashqar said in ‘The Minor Resurrection’: ‘Al-Nawawi says in his refutation of those who deny the descent of Jesus, claiming that if his descent were true, it would contradict his [the Prophet’s] saying, peace be upon him: ‘There is no prophet after me,’ and that he would thereby be abrogating the law of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. This reasoning is corrupt, because what is not intended by the descent of Jesus, peace be upon him, is that he descends as a prophet with a law that abrogates

[Ra’i al Jama’a fi Bayan Aqida al-Suwad al-A’dham min al-Ummah, vol.1 pg. 99]

References

Deobandis, just like other ‘Sunnis’ fabricate lies against Ahmadi Muslims by claiming that we deny that Muhammad (SAW) is Khatam an-Nabiyyin or that we don’t consider the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) to be the last prophet. Their only reason for lying about us is to hide the fact that their scholars have said exactly what they are alleging against the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS).

Prophethood has ended

Qari Muhammad Tayyab is the grandson of Qasim Nanotwi. Qasim Nanotwi is the founder of the Deobandi sect. Qasim Nanotwi has made numerous statements where he claims that Khatam an-Nabiyyin DOES NOT mean the ‘the last Prophet’, rather, it is the understanding of the common people. In this article, we will show his grandson confirming the same belief. Note, that Qari Muhammad Tayyab is called ‘Hakeem al-Islam’ by the Deobandis which means ‘The Wise scholar of Islam’.

The Manifestations of the Light of Prophethood

When the Muhaddithīn come, the light of my Prophethood will manifest through them. When the Fuqahā come—Abu Hanifah, Malik, al-Shāfiʿī (rahimahumullah)—my light will shine through all of them; they will have no light of their own. When the noble Sufis appear—Junayd, Shiblī, Bayazid Bastami, etc.—their beings will carry no light except the light of my Prophethood.

From some, the light of my knowledge will appear; from others, the light of my character; from others still, the light of my zuhd and contentment. All of them will manifest my light, and my one Prophethood will be sufficient until the Day of Judgment. New mirrors will keep appearing, and that same light will keep radiating; the world will continue to be illuminated.
There is no need for a new prophethood, because all degrees of Prophethood have been perfected and completed in me. To interpret Khatam-un-Nabiyyīn as “the door of Prophethood is shut” is to mislead people. Its true meaning is the perfection and completion of Prophethood, not the severance of Prophethood or the spread of darkness.

Do not fall into the deception that Khatm-e-Nubuwwat means qataʿ-e-nubuwwat. It means kamāl-e-nubuwwat and takmīl-e-nubuwwat. O Prophet ﷺ, you are the Khatam—meaning that the ranks and stages of Prophethood end with you. After you, every reformer, muhaddith, imam, saint, martyr, and mujahid will carry only one light: your light. They are vessels, and from each vessel the perfection of your Prophethood will shine.

It is as if Allah created such a Being that from his blessings the earlier ones became Prophets, and the later ones became Saints. Sainthood and Prophethood both emanate from the same source. The Prophets of the past benefited from your Prophethood, and those who come after continue to become saints, reformers, and muhaddathīn through the perfections granted to you.

[Khutbat-e-Hakeem al-Islam, vol. 1, pg. 124]

This is just part of the sermon of Qari Muhammad Tayyab. Everyone can read the complete sermon and other statements where he expands on the same exact topic. Here is one video for the benefit of the Urdu speakers. It has English subtitles for non-Urdu speakers.

Conclusion

This leads to many questions.

1. Why are Deobandis takfiring Ahmadi Muslims when their leading scholars are publicly claiming that Khatme Nabuwat DOES NOT mean ‘termination of prophethood’?
2. Why are they not takfiring their ulema or why are their modern day ulema not takfiring their own founders? Why the hypocrisy?
3. Why are the rest of the ‘Sunnis’ silent on this issue when they are the loudest voices against Ahmadi Muslims?
4. Where are the ‘Khatme Nabuwat’ gangs who lynch non-Muslims and Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan? How are they protecting ‘Khatme Nabuwat’ when they are literally teaming up with those who are claiming Muhammad (SAW) is NOT the last prophet?

No one from amongst the ‘Sunnis’ will ever be able to answer these questions!

Prophet Muhammad (SAW) prophesied that in the latter days, Muslims would split off into 73 sects. Out of all these, one sect will be heaven-bound while the rest (72) will be Hell-bound. This Heaven-bound sect will be a Jama’ah which has one leader (Imam). Today that sect is the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’ah.

Hadith #1

You would tread the same path as was trodden by those before you inch by inch and step by step so much so that if they had entered into the hole of the lizard, you would follow them in this also. We said: Allah’s Messenger, do you mean Jews and Christians (by your words)” those before you”? He said: Who else (than those two religious groups)?

[Sahih Muslim 2669a]

Hadith #2

Narrated Abu Hurayrah:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: The Jews were split up into seventy-one or seventy-two sects; and the Christians were split up into seventy one or seventy-two sects; and my community will be split up into seventy-three sects.

[Sunan Abi Dawud 4596]

Hadith #3

Abu `Amir al-Hawdhani said:

Mu`awiyah b. Abi Sufiyan stood among us and said: Beware! The Apostle of Allah (ﷺ) stood among us and said: Beware! The people of the Book before were split up into seventy two sects, and this community will be split into seventy three: seventy two of them will go to Hell and one of them will go to Paradise, and it is the united community.

[Sunan Abi Dawud 4597]

Hadith #4

Narrated Abu Hurairah:

that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “The Jews split into seventy-one sects, or seventy-two sects, and the Christians similarly, and my Ummah will split into seventy-three sects.”

[Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2640]

Hadith #5

It was narrated from ‘Awf bin Malik that the Messenger of Allah(ﷺ) said:

“The Jews split into seventy-one sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy in Hell. The Christians split into seventy-two sects, seventy-one of which will be in Hell and one in Paradise. I swear by the One Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad, my nation will split into seventy-three sects, one of which will be in Paradise and seventy-two in Hell.” It was said: “O Messenger of Allah, who are they?” He said: “The united community.”

[Sunan Ibn Majah 3992]

Hadith #6

It was narrated from Anas bin Malik that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:

‘The Children of Israel split into seventy-one sects, and my nation will split into seventy-two, all of which will be in Hell apart from one, which is the united community.”

[Sunan Ibn Majah 3993]

Hadith #7

Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr:

that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “What befell the children of Isra’il will befall my Ummah, step by step, such that if there was one who had intercourse with his mother in the open, then there would be someone from my Ummah who would do that. Indeed the children of Isra’il split into seventy-two sects, and my Ummah will split into seventy-three sects. All of them are in the Fire Except one sect.” He said: “And which is it O Messenger of Allah?” He said: “What I am upon and my Companions.”

[Jami` Tirmidhi 2641]
[Sahih by Shuaib Al Arna’ut]
[Hasan by Albani]

When Will 73 Sects Form?

As per ahadith, this great division will happen at the time of the Messiah & Dajjal:

“The one-eyed Dajjal, the misguided messiah, will emerge from the direction of the east in a time of division and conflict among the people.”

_{[Musnad Sahih]}

Stick To Jama’ah & Leave The Sects

The Prophet ﷺ stated that during the time of Ad-Dajjal, Muslims ought to pledge allegiance and faithfully stick to the one Jama’ah and leave all other hell-bound sects:

Narrated Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman:

The people used to ask Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) about the good but I used to ask him about the evil lest I should be overtaken by them. So I said, “O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)! We were living in ignorance and in an (extremely) worst atmosphere, then Allah brought to us this good (i.e., Islam); will there be any evil after this good?” He said, “Yes.” I said, ‘Will there be any good after that evil?” He replied, “Yes, but it will be tainted (not pure.)” I asked, “What will be its taint?” He replied, “(There will be) some people who will guide others not according to my tradition? You will approve of some of their deeds and disapprove of some others.” I asked, “Will there be any evil after that good?” He replied, “Yes, (there will be) some people calling at the gates of the (Hell) Fire, and whoever will respond to their call, will be thrown by them into the (Hell) Fire.” I said, “O Allah s Apostle! Will you describe them to us?” He said, “They will be from our own people and will speak our language.” I said, “What do you order me to do if such a state should take place in my life?” He said, “Stick to the group of Muslims and their Imam (ruler).” I said, “If there is neither a group of Muslims nor an Imam (ruler)?” He said, “Then turn away from all those sects even if you were to bite (eat) the roots of a tree till death overtakes you while you are in that state.”

_{[Sahih al-Bukhari 7084]} 

Definition of Jama’ah According to Scholars

This can be read in detail here: https://whiteminaret.org/khilafat/after-messiah/#Definition_of_Jamaah_According_to_Scholars

ONLY JAMA’AH IS JAMA’AH AL-AHMADIYYA

By definition of the word, the only “Jama’ah” on earth is the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community i.e. the only group with an Imam/ Khalifa. 

The Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’ah that fits this definition of Jama’ah, as it is the only Jama’ah today united under one single Imam. Thus, Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’ah is in essence the true Ahlus Sunnah Wa’l Jama’ah.

Hazrat Khalīfatul Masīh I, Maulānā Ḥakīm Maulwi Nūrudīn (RA ) states:

“In this age, there is no Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah on the face of the earth except [for] the Aḥmadīyyah. The Jama’ah will only be the one with an Imām. If we were to line up our opponent Muslims in one row, would they be able to have one Imām? Absolutely Not! [However], yes, it is the unique characteristic of the Aḥmadīyyah Jama’ah that it has an Imām. Thus, at this time, except for Ahmadis no one [else] is from Ahlus-Sunnah wa’l-Jama’ah.“

_{[Al Hakam, Feb 21, 1910, pg. 3]}

Conclusion

• Ahadith of Prophet (SAW) make it clear that the Muslim Ummah will be divided into 73 sects.
• The division will happen during the time of Ad-Dajjal.
• The heaven-bound sect will be united under a single leader/Imam.
• The Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’ah represents the heaven-bound sect of the latter days that Muhammad (SAW) prophesied.

Related Articles

Some Muslims allege that since Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani (AS) lied that the following hadith exists in Bukhari, he cannot be a Messiah sent by Allah.

…those ahadith of Şahih al-Bukhāri foretelling the appearance of Khulafa’ in the Latter Days, especially that khalifah about whom it is recorded in Şahih al-Bukhari that, for him, a voice will descend from heaven: هذا خَلِيفَةُ اللَّهِ الْمَهْدِي [This is God’s Khalifah, the Guided One]. Now consider the status and credibility of this hadith-which is recorded in the most authentic of books after the Book of Allah. On the other hand, the hadith that has been presented by the critic has been criticized by the ulema on many grounds and its authenticity has been questioned.

[Testimony of the Holy Quran, pg. 66]

In this article, we will show how this argument declares all the prophets of Allah as false.

Refutation

Can Prophets make mistakes?

Anti-Ahmadis showcase their ignorance of basic Islamic principles with these allegations. This allegation on Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) is actually an allegation on the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) as he too made humanly mistakes in day to day matters. If an accidental misquoting of a hadith to a different book makes one a false Messiah, then same must be said about the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), and other Prophets of Allah.

Adam (AS)

وَلَقَدۡ عَہِدۡنَاۤ اِلٰۤی اٰدَمَ مِنۡ قَبۡلُ فَنَسِیَ وَلَمۡ نَجِدۡ لَہٗ عَزۡمًا

And verily, We had made a covenant with Adam beforehand, but he forgot, and We found in him no determination to disobey.

[Quran 20:115]

Muhammad (SAW)

حَدَّثَنَا عُثْمَانُ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا جَرِيرٌ ، عَنْ مَنْصُورٍ ، عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ ، عَنْ عَلْقَمَةَ ، قَالَ : قَالَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ : صَلَّى النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ : قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ : لَا أَدْرِي زَادَ أَوْ نَقَصَ ، فَلَمَّا سَلَّمَ ، قِيلَ لَهُ : يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَحَدَثَ فِي الصَّلَاةِ شَيْءٌ ، قَالَ : وَمَا ذَاكَ ؟ قَالُوا : صَلَّيْتَ كَذَا وَكَذَا ، فَثَنَى رِجْلَيْهِ وَاسْتَقْبَلَ الْقِبْلَةَ وَسَجَدَ سَجْدَتَيْنِ ثُمَّ سَلَّمَ ، فَلَمَّا أَقْبَلَ عَلَيْنَا بِوَجْهِهِ ، قَالَ : إِنَّهُ لَوْ حَدَثَ فِي الصَّلَاةِ شَيْءٌ لَنَبَّأْتُكُمْ بِهِ ، وَلَكِنْ إِنَّمَا أَنَا بَشَرٌ مِثْلُكُمْ أَنْسَى كَمَا تَنْسَوْنَ ، فَإِذَا نَسِيتُ فَذَكِّرُونِي ، وَإِذَا شَكَّ أَحَدُكُمْ فِي صَلَاتِهِ فَلْيَتَحَرَّى الصَّوَابَ ، فَلْيُتِمَّ عَلَيْهِ ، ثُمَّ يُسَلِّمْ ، ثُمَّ يَسْجُدُ سَجْدَتَيْنِ .

Narrated `Abdullah: The Prophet prayed (and the sub-narrator Ibrahim said, I do not know whether he prayed more or less than usual ), and when he had finished the prayers he was asked, O Allah’s Apostle! Has there been any change in the prayers? He said, What is it?’ The people said, You have prayed so much and so much. So the Prophet bent his legs, faced the Qibla and performed two prostration’s (of Sahu) and finished his prayers with Taslim (by turning his face to right and left saying: ‘As-Salamu `Alaikum- Warahmat-ullah’). When he turned his face to us he said, If there had been anything changed in the prayer, surely I would have informed you but I am a human being like you and liable to forget like you. So if I forget remind me and if anyone of you is doubtful about his prayer, he should follow what he thinks to be correct and complete his prayer accordingly and finish it and do two prostrations (of Sahu).

[Sahih al-Bukhari 401]

Ahmad (AS): No Mahdi in Bukhari

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) has already mentioned in multiple books that Mahdi is not mentioned in Bukhari and Muslim.

• Izala Auham (1891): No Mahdi
• Testimony of the Holy Quran (1893): “This is God’s Khalifah, the Guided One”
• Haqiqatul Mahdi (1899): No Mahdi

This clearly shows that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) has mistakenly attributed the hadith to Bukhari and such humanly mistakes are normal for even the prophets to do.

Sunni Scholars attribute the same narration to Bukhari

Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) mistakenly attributed the hadith to Bukhari, just like many other scholars of Islam had done the same. It is possible that all of them quoted this hadith from Kanzul Ummal or another scholarly book which had a similar mistake.

Qari Muhammad Tayyab, son of Qasim Nanotvi, who is the founder of the Deobandi sect says:

مہدی علیہ السلام کے بارے میں کچھ علامتیں آئی ہیں ۔ مثلاً یہ کہ مہدی علیہ السلام کا مکہ مکرمہ میں ظہور ہو گا۔ اور یہ حدیث صحیح بخاری شریف میں موجود ہے کہ غیب سے آواز آئے گی اور وہ آواز یہ ہوگی ۔ هَذَا خَلِيفَةُ اللَّهِ الْمَهْدِي فَاتَّبِعُوهُ وَأَطِيعُوهُ ۔ یعنی یہ اللہ کے خلیفہ مہدی ہیں ان کی بات مانو اور ان کی اطاعت کرو ۔

There are some signs regarding the Mahdi, peace be upon him. For example, that the Mahdi, peace be upon him, will appear in Mecca. And this hadith is present in Sahih Bukhari Sharif that a voice will come from the unseen, and that voice will be: ‘This is Allah’s Caliph, the Mahdi, so follow him and obey him.‘ Meaning, this is Allah’s Caliph, the Mahdi – listen to him and obey him.

[Majalis i Hakeem ul Islam]

What is the source of this Hadith?

Lastly, this hadith is a famous narration found in multiple ahadith book. It is not made up by the Promised Messiah (AS).

أَخْبَرَنَا الْحُسَيْنُ بْنُ يَعْقُوبَ بْنِ يُوسُفَ الْعَدْلُ، ثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ أَبِي طَالِبٍ، ثَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَهَّابِ بْنُ عَطَاءٍ، أَنْبَأَ خَالِدٌ الْحَذَّاءُ، عَنْ أَبِي قِلَابَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي أَسْمَاءَ، عَنْ ثَوْبَانَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ: «إِذَا رَأَيْتُمُ الرَّايَاتِ السُّودَ خَرَجَتْ مِنْ قِبَلِ خُرَاسَانَ فَأْتُوهَا وَلَوْ حَبْوًا، فَإِنَّ فِيهَا خَلِيفَةَ اللَّهِ الْمَهْدِيَّ» هَذَا حَدِيثٌ صَحِيحٌ عَلَى شَرْطِ الشَّيْخَيْنِ، وَلَمْ يُخْرِجَاهُ “

Thawban (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates: When you see that an army carrying black flags has emerged from the direction of Khorasan, then you must join them because in that army is the Caliph of Allah, Mahdi.

** This Hadith is Sahih (authentic) according to the criteria of Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) and Imam Muslim (may Allah have mercy on him), but the two Sheikhs (may Allah have mercy on them) did not narrate it.

[Mustadrak Al Hakim 8531]

أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الصَّفَّارُ، ثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ بْنِ أَرُومَةَ، ثَنَا الْحُسَيْنُ بْنُ حَفْصٍ، ثَنَا سُفْيَانُ، عَنْ خَالِدٍ الْحَذَّاءِ، عَنْ أَبِي قِلَابَةَ، عَنْ أَبِي أَسْمَاءَ، عَنْ ثَوْبَانَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «يَقْتَتِلُ عِنْدَ كَنْزِكُمْ ثَلَاثَةٌ كُلُّهُمُ ابْنُ خَلِيفَةَ، ثُمَّ لَا يَصِيرُ إِلَى وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمْ، ثُمَّ تَطْلُعُ الرَّايَاتُ السُّودُ مِنْ قِبَلِ الْمَشْرِقِ فَيُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ قِتَالًا لَمْ يُقَاتِلْهُ قَوْمٌ – ثُمَّ ذَكَرَ شَيْئًا فَقَالَ – إِذَا رَأَيْتُمُوهُ فَبَايِعُوهُ وَلَوْ حَبْوًا عَلَى الثَّلْجِ، فَإِنَّهُ خَلِيفَةُ اللَّهِ الْمَهْدِيُّ» هَذَا حَدِيثٌ صَحِيحٌ عَلَى شَرْطِ الشَّيْخَيْنِ “” [التعليق – من تلخيص الذهبي] 8432 – على شرط البخاري ومسلم

Thawban (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: “Three people, all of them sons of Caliphs, will fight over your treasure, but none of them will acquire it. Then, black banners will emerge from the east, and they will fight you in a way that no nation has ever fought before.” He (the Prophet) mentioned some other things then said: “When you see him (the one with the black banners), pledge allegiance to him, even if you have to crawl over ice on your buttocks, for he is the Mahdi, the Caliph of Allah.“

**This hadith is sahih (authentic) according to the criteria of Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim, but the two Sheikhs (Abu Bakr and Umar) did not narrate it.**

[Mustadrak Al Hakim 8432]

Conclusion

• The hadith was misattributed to Sahih Bukhari by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS).
• Such mistakes are not uncommon for even the Prophets of Allah. Muhammad (SAW), and other prophets also made humanly mistakes in their life
• If such mistakes prove that Ahmad (AS) is a false Messiah, then one has to declare all prophets of Allah as false too. Nauzubillah.
• The hadith exists in many books of ahadith and graded as authentic by numerous scholars (Ibn Kathir etc)
• A few other Muslim scholars have misattributed this hadith to Bukhari as well

Some anti-Ahmadis, such as Nuzhat Haneef and Adnan Rashid, allege that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani (AS) had a bad character because he was uncivil when mocking the Christians.

But the mockery must remain within bounds of civility and also must be fair.

They show this picture as “Proof”

The claim is, look, how Mirza Ghulam Ahmad drew up this picture of Dowie, meanwhile his own picture is there.

Refutation

First of all, if we go to the original edition, we see how bogus this claim really is

Original Edition has a Drawing of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad AS

The claims that these images are a caricature of Dowie is extremely laughable at best.. The original edition of the same book quoted by Adnan) also has a sketch of Masih Mau’ud ASWill anti-Ahmadis claim he drew a caricature of himself?

*Note: The page numbers are different because Ruhani Khazain compilation came after, and in the lifetime of Promised Messiah AS there was no such compilation called “Ruhani Khazain”, where multiple books can be in a singular volume

Why the need of sketches?

Photocopiers as we have today were not available and did not come into existence until the 1960’s onwards. Reproducing images was difficult and tedious – sketches, drawings etc were common : https://www.npr.org/2013/10/23/239241106/happy-birthday-copy-machine-happy-birthday-copy-machine

An Actual Caricature of Dowie

Definition of Caricature

A caricature is a painting, or more usually drawing, of a person or thing in which the features and form have been distorted and exaggerated in order to mock or satirise the subject.

Here is one historical caricature of Dowie:

Sketches were taken from Newspapers

Promised Messiah AS himself has denoted in his books that he has taken images from newspapers and published them (He didn’t draw them).

اور وہ یہ ہے جس کو ہم نے عیسائیوں کی شائع کردہ تصویروں سے لیا ہے۔

…and which was taken from the pictures published by the Christians.’

[Ruhani Khazain, vol. 11, pg. 35]

Each sketch in the book of the Promised Messiah AS was from the newspapers:

Example 1:

Example 2:

Some more images of Dowie:

Sanaullah Amritsari’s caricature of Jesus!

In fact it is @MrAdnanRashid and @Farid_0v ‘s scholar, Ahle Hadith

Sanaullah Amritsari who made a caricature of ISA AS

Above the image is the words of Jesus from the Bible “Eli Eli Lama Sabacthani – O God why hast thou forsaken me

Conclusion

According to the absurd conclusion of the Anti-Ahmadis, Promised Messiah AS drew a caricature of Dowie but also of himself. Clearly, these ignorants do not even know what the meaning of the word caricature is. Sketches of an images which are accurate can not be deemed as a caricature as by definition a caricature has exaggerated features.

Promised Messiah AS didn’t draw these pictures; rather these were sketched by an artist/scribe based on newspaper photos.

An Anti-Ahmadi by the name of ReasonOnFaith alleged that Ahmadiyya Jama’at fabricated Malfuzat to add the Mubahala challenge to Pigott, 60 years after the death of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani (AS).

Let’s enjoy the absolute ignorance of this ‘intellectual’.

Malfoozat: The compilation made in 1960 of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s statements, written down over half a century after Mirza Ghulam Ahmad had already died. Generally speaking, entries are not traced back to any contemporaneous written records.

…

Perhaps the reason for the missing mubahila reference is that much of the mubahila apologetic comes to us from passages in Malfoozat—a compilation of books not published until the 1960s—and even then, only in Urdu.⁹ As a result, many apologists in the Jama’at for whom English is their main language, wouldn’t have even known about this innovative line of apologetic.

Of course, if a mubahila was proposed to Pigott back in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s own lifetime, you’d think we’d at least have one article defending the prophecy on those grounds in say, 1908, 1909 or 1910.¹⁰

Ahmadi Muslim readers are encouraged to look for such an article from the period. Try the Review of Religions archives from both the Qadian and Lahore branches of Ahmadiyya Islam. Did you find a candidate article? If so, does it provide authenticated evidence from before Mirza Ghulam Ahmad’s own death, that a mubahila was issued? If not, why did we have to wait until the 1960s for this evidence to surface? Food for thought.

[Link]

There are countless sensational claims like this, alleging that the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community fabricates new references to counter the attacks of its opponents. For the sake of brevity and to spare the little dignity left for the anti-Ahmadis, we will leave it at that.

Refutation

Malfuzat – A fabrication of the 1960s?

Malfuzat is a collection of all the oral sayings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) that were published in Al-Hakam and Al-Badr newspaper, during the lifetime of the Promised Messiah (AS). This is literally mentioned in the preface of every volume of Malfuzat.

In the preparation of this most recent typeset edition, the original sources from Al-Hakam and Al-Badr Qadian were studied and every effort was made to include any spoken words of the Promised Messiah, on whom be peace

[Link]

Every single reference in Malfuzat has the reference of the corresponding Al-Hakam and Al-Badr newspaper’s date and year. Here is 1 simple example from English Malfuzat.

Similarly, Urdu Malfuzat has the exact same references with each narration from Promised Messiah (AS). It is absurd to claim that Ahmadis invented the references and attributed them to Ahmad (AS) to answer the critics.

Pigott Mubahala in Al-Hakam?

After knowing the absolute ignorance of the Anti-Ahmadi, we will now show proof of the reference from Al-Hakam where the Promised messiah (AS) sends a challenge of Mubahala to Pigott.

We should definitely send a letter to Piggott. If he competes, it will have a massive influence and people will also pay attention.

Mufti Sahib said that a letter has already been written.

The Promised Messiah (as) said: In comparison to US [Dowie], we are much more connected with Britain. If he accepts this competition and this is properly documented, we hope that Allah will show a sign.”

The original scan for this particular passage in Malfuzat, vol. 2, p. 439 is found in Al-Badr, Nov 7, 1902, p. 14.

Conclusion

Almost every non-Ahmadi who attacks the Jama’at or the Promised Messiah (AS) displays the same level of ignorance. They do not engage in objective research or genuine learning; rather, their sole motive is to satisfy their ego and push a personal agenda.

Unfortunately, despite repeatedly reminding ReasonOnFaith, the article on his website remains unchanged even after three years. This only reinforces that their attacks on the community are not based on truth or sincerity. May Allah guide every enemy of Jama’at-e-Ahmadiyya. Ameen.

Some anti-Ahmadis allege that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani (AS) had a bad character because he was uncivil when mocking the Christians. This was mentioned by an Anti-Ahmadi by the name of Nuzhat Haneef:

But the mockery must remain within bounds of civility and also must be fair.

Refutation

This allegation shows how low the intellectual level of these people are. Literally right before the image, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (AS) writes:

اور وہ یہ ہے جس کو ہم نے عیسائیوں کی شائع کردہ تصویروں سے لیا ہے۔

…and which was taken from the pictures published by the Christians.’

[Ruhani Khazain, vol. 11, pg. 35]